Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.99 seconds)
Documents citing Satya Paul Kalra vs The Deputy Inspector General Of Police ... on 13 February, 1963

Ram Dhar Pandey Inre 6034S/S/90 vs State Of U.P.Through Secy. Home Deptt. ... on 18 July, 2012

In the case noted above, it has been held that when power is given to do certain things in a certain manner, the thing must be done in that way or not at all, other methods of performance are necessarily forbidden. Paragraph 505 of the Police Regulations has been declared as mandatory in the case of Satya Paul Kalra versus The Deputy Inspector General of Police and others, reported in AIR 1964 Allahabad 121 (V 51 C 37).
Allahabad High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Ajeet Singh vs State Of U.P. And 5 Others on 30 October, 2025

17. Here in the present case, the contention of the learned counsel for the writ petitioner is that the letter seeking resignation dated 28.12.2017 was not in conformity with the provisions contained under Sections 9 of the Act read with Regulation 505 of the Regulations, as the basic ingredient, which was a pre-requisite was itself lacking being two months' notice. Emphasis is on the fact that once the notice itself was defective, then it could not have been acted upon and thus any action taken in furtherance thereof that too to the detriment of the police personnel would not be of any avail. Certainly, once a request is made for resignation and is accepted then the employee cannot turn around and insist that the resignation should be withdrawn, but here there is a distinct feature that the notice itself was defective. Once the notice was defective and not in conformity with the provisions contained under Section 9 of the Police Act read with Regulation 505 of the Police Regulations, then it could not have been taken notice of. In Satya Paul Kalra (supra), the said issue came up for consideration and in para-22, it was observed as under:-
Allahabad High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1